Today's Order of Business is Item 1. Subject to the agreement of the House, it is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the proceedings on the Second Stage of Item 1, if not already concluded, will be brought to a conclusion at 8 p.m. by the putting of one question from the Chair and the Minister will be called upon to conclude the debate no later than 7.40 p.m. Business will be interrupted from 6 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. I am suggesting 30 minutes for spokespersons and 20 minutes for each Senator thereafter.
Order of Business.
I have to disagree with the Leader of the House about the arrangement of today's business. An undesirable practice has developed in the House of having time limits on every issue for discussion. The Leader would agree that these are rarely necessary; in fact, he will get co-operation in trying to achieve the result he desires. In principle, we will not agree to a time limit although the debate probably will, of its own accord, come to an end at that time anyway. I do not agree to a time limit on speakers on the Social Welfare Bill. We will have few speakers, but they may want to deal with this Bill in detail. I would ask the Leader not to press the arrangements he has proposed.
Last week we had one of the best and most important debates in my time here on Northern Ireland. In its own way, especially because of the timing of Senator Wilson's contribution it contributed to a momentum that has developed in the past couple of days. It would be a shame if it was to be another eight years before this House had the next major debate on Northern Ireland. Rather than having major structured debates, I think it would be beneficial if on-going, short debates on Northern Ireland became a feature of the workings of this House.
We have learned from last week's debate that we do no harm by talking about Northern Ireland, but we do a great deal of harm by not airing the views of all sides and making our contribution to the resolution of this complex problem. I ask the Leader of the House, as a matter of urgency, if he would consult with the other parties to find a way whereby Northern Ireland could be a regular item on the agenda of this House. This would be a small contribution, made in good faith by the Members of this House, towards solving the problems of the North.
It was significant last week that the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs made the point that, although there were differences of opinion in the context of the debate, there was general agreement on the end we all wanted and there was a spirit of tolerance in the House for different points of view. I ask the Leader of the House to urgently consider the matter I am proposing.
I wish to say for the record that there is no Whips agreement to a guillotine on today's business. There should be a compromise. I welcome the new approach of having, as I have been proposing for two years now, a time limit on speeches and I think that has worked well in the last couple of weeks. It is right that there should be some order to business and I do not have a difficulty with that in principle. I think it is important that people should know beforehand, if possible, when a vote is to take place.
I agree with Senator Manning that everybody may have finished speaking by 8 p.m., although I do not think that will be the case. A better approach would be to have the debate as it has been organised, with a time limit on speeches and then, during the sos, the Whips might come together to identify the number of speakers yet to contribute and come to an agreement.
I do not have a problem with fixing a time for a vote. We on the Independent benches are not trying to create a problem for the House. It is our view that the business of the House should be ordered to allow everybody to participate to the maximum. That smooth running of this House is not helped by the over use of the guillotine. We have agreed to it every time it has been needed, but if it is over used, it might be brought into disrepute.
Any time the Leader had a problem, we have always been willing to accommodate him. I would ask, on this occasion, that he does not push for the 8 o'clock vote at this point. Let the Whips come together, at 6 o'clock, see how many Senators want to speak and then come to a conclusion. We may get the same end result but it would be reached without confrontation.
I, too have difficulty with this proposal. We all agree there is a need to regulate the business of the House in an efficient and a business-like manner. That point has been made during debates on Seanad reform. It would be wrong in principle if speakers who wished to participate in a debate of this nature — we have detailed and complex legislation before us — should be excluded. I agree with Senator O'Toole's call for time limits on speeches, because people tend to go on too long. Having said that, it would be wrong to handle all Seanad business in that way. It is one thing not to have enough speakers but every Senator who wishes to speak in this House should be accommodated within the rules. That is why the proposal, as framed, is wrong.
The other point I wish to make to the Leader of the House is that, judging by the results of the French election, it appears the whole complexion of the GATT talks will change. Will the Leader make time available over the next few weeks to discuss the GATT talks in detail again?
May I ask the Leader if he would consider having a debate on enlargement of the European Community. I have asked for this debate already and I ask for it now in the light of remarks made by the Taoiseach in his speech last night at the Institute of European Affairs, where he said he was in favour of Community enlargement. Such enlargement would impact upon all of us. I would also like to ask him to consider Senator Manning's request for more frequent debates on Northern Ireland. I suggest we debate it every Wednesday night, until a solution is found. Let us put our money where our mouth is and make this House a forum for peace instead of a talking shop. Would the Leader also consider inviting to those debates people who have some responsibility to find a solution, people like Sir Patrick Mayhew, the Reverend Ian Paisley, Gerry Adams or John Hume. Let us also invite James Molyneux and the Reverend Martin Smith to the House and hear their views.
May I ask the Leader if he would give time to Item 9 on the Law Refrom Commission on Defamation. He promised some time ago that we would have a full and thorough debate on the matter. The Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Deputy O'Dea, made a comprehensive statement on the issue over the weekend and we should have the opportunity to discuss it here.
May I heartily support what Senator Manning said and say how much I would welcome regular debates on Northern Ireland. I would not be so selfish as to ask for one every week, but I am very keen that we debate the subject regularly. I ask the Leader of the House to arrange this; otherwise I do not earn my money at all.
I agree with Senators Manning and O'Toole in my dislike of the guillotine motion, but the Leader is usually very flexible in these matters. By his body language, I interpret that he will not insist upon it this evening. I approve of the proposed time limits. Half an hour for the first speaker and 20 minutes thereafter should be sufficient. That is a good discipline. We can expand on points in detail on Committee Stage, which seems to be the appropriate place to do so.
I also support the calls from various sides of the House for a series of debates on Northern Ireland. There was a long period, as you know, a Chathaoirligh, during which we had no debate on the North at all, because it was claimed it would be inimical to the interests of people there, given the sensitivity of the issues. Senator Wilson, to whom we must listen with great respect, indicated that he would welcome successive debates and these would allow us to follow up matters raised. I suggested last week that all Members of the Oireachtas might hold a dignified five minute protest against Sinn Féin. I would like the opportunity to pursue this suggestion in a series of debates. May I finally ask for some details about the foreign——
Will we have a protest against the UVF?
Senator Norris, without interruption.
Certainly, and I have done so. I have also picketed the UDA in Northern Ireland and as Senator Mooney knows well, I was fully supportive of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four. My credentials are unimpeachable. It was a good question, and I am grateful to the Senator for the opportunity to answer it. It is a pity we have so much ‘what aboutery'— what about what happened in the First World War?
May I ask about the Foreign Affairs Committee, because detailed speculation in the newspapers would lead one to suppose that the precise formulation of this committee will be released this week. Has the Leader got information on it that he could give to the House?
A Chathaoirligh, it seems in future, it will be unnecessary for the Leader of the House to speak at all; his body language will tell it all. He will have to be more careful.
Some subjects are more appropriate for that than others.
Some of the points made by the Leader of the Fine Gael group are reasonable. We have tried, since the start of this session, to take account of the views of the Opposition on all business, as, for example, on the initiation of Bills. We have trawled through our respective parties to ensure that happens and the debate on Northern Ireland is part of that process. There is no question of partisanship in trying to make this House work better, whether debating Northern Ireland or another topic. In relation to the point made by Senator O'Toole, I do not see anything wrong with checking perhaps at 6 p.m. to determine the point we have reached in the debate and then putting a time on the debate if necessary. There will be times when the guillotine will come down with our full support, as it has come down against Fianna Fáil with our collective support in the past. This situation is no different. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges will meet tomorrow and I hope it will discuss Seanad reform among other things. There is no need for partisanship in these matters. We should work together to make this House more efficient.
I support those who opposed the guillotine on Second Stage debate on the Social Welfare Bill. As one who is likely to be affected by these time limits I calculate there would only be four and a half hours allowed which is not sufficient for such an important Bill. I support the request for an extension of this time. May I also, a Chathaoirligh, ask the Leader if he could arrange the Order of Business in the Seanad in such a way as to enable Members of the European Parliament to come here to discuss matters pertaining to Ireland. Members of the European Parliament make statements frequently at local branch meetings of political parties — the most recent was on health and education.
I support Senator Manning and the other Senators who are calling for regular debates on Northern Ireland. Last week, the Tánaiste in his closing speech, indicated his willingness to co-operate with us in any further debates we may wish to have on the subject. The Dáil is also debating Northern Ireland this week.
I support the idea of time limits for individual speakers. Time limits concentrate the mind and there is no need for any speaker to take an extensive amount of time. However, I agree with Senator Magner that it seems a reasonable compromise to take up Senator O'Toole's suggestion of a meeting of the Whips at 6 p.m. to decide on the necessity for a time limit to the debate.
I would like to refer to some points made earlier. I wish to record my personal agreement with the view that Northern Ireland issues should be discussed here regularly. Senator Lydon's elaboration of Senator Manning's view that this House should be converted for a period, at least once a month, into a forum for peace is a valid one. I suggest the Whips and the Leader of the House give some time on the Committee on Procedure Privileges to considering how that could be done.
Last week's statements on Northern Ireland were excellent in every regard. They indicated above all that dialogue is more likely to achieve progress than isolation. An important decision was taken in the Supreme Court today and I ask the Leader to make time available soon to discuss the operation of section 31 and its continued validity.
I understand the Committee on Procedure and Privileges meets tomorrow. May I suggest that the Committee on Procedure Privileges, either tomorrow or at a very early date, considers the establishment of a broadcast monitoring committee? This House is treated in a derisory and insulting way by what passes for a public service broadcasting station. Last week's Seanad debate, on one of the most important issues this country has had to deal with, was given a derisory three and a quarter minutes coverage on "Morning Ireland". It is important in the interests of democracy that both Houses of the Oireachtas conduct their business in public. It is also important that that business be covered, particularly by the public broadcasting station that is funded by taxation paid by the people. I would suggest to the Whips, the Leader of the House and to you, a Chathaoirligh, that it is very important that the broadcast monitoring committee be established at the earliest date.
May I reiterate what I said at the beginning. There was never an attempt to introduce the guillotine, far from it. I said it was a suggestion. I want to assure Senator Manning, Senator O'Toole, Senator Sherlock and Senator Dardis, and all who mentioned that issue, that I was trying to bring order to the House so that Senators will be able to order their day. I have no problem with the suggestion of a 6 p.m. meeting between the Whips. Is there agreement on a time frame for each speaker? Many times I sat in the other House for two and a quarter hours while someone discussed an issue. I believe that is wrong. It is a personal view. I agree that the Whips will meet at 6 p.m. to discuss the second half of the evening. We can discuss this all day Thursday if necessary so there is no time problem. I would ask you to agree a time limit, for example, 45 minutes for spokespersons and 30 minutes thereafter, because that brings order to the House and it is in the interests of all who want to contribute and have other commitments. Perhaps we could get agreement on that.
I am not clear what was the suggestion. Is it agreed that 30 minutes will be provided for spokespersons and 20 minutes for other speakers between now and 6 p.m.?
I am not sure if that was agreed.
I suggest 40 minutes for spokespersons and 20 minutes thereafter.
Do we have agreement on that?
That is agreed. At 6 p.m. the Whips will meet to discuss whether the Second Stage of the Bill will be concluded this evening or on Thursday.
Following last week's debate on Northern Ireland, I take on board what has been suggested by many Senators. Ministers, including the Tánaiste, have made it clear that they would be more than willing to come back to this House to discuss Northern Ireland. I welcome the fact that we had a chance last week to debate that issue. Since then various sources have suggested that this House would be an ideal forum for people at the highest level to outline their views on the Northern Ireland issue. I hope in the next week or so, to be able to come back to the House with a suggestion that would allow such people to come here to express their views. The impact of the debate in the Seanad last week has gone to the highest level in dealing with the problem that faces us.
We regularly discuss European issues, such as EC enlargement and Common Agricultural Policy proposals. Senator Roche mentioned today's court decision on section 31. When the Whips get a chance to discuss it, we will see whether we will have a debate on it. With regard to his proposal for a broadcasting monitoring unit, the Committee on Procedure and Privileges will discuss that.
Order of Business agreed to.